Who cares about an eight-hour campaign when multiplayer is this good?

You'll be able to track all of your progress through Battlelog (BL), a complete social network built for Battlefield 3. Use of the service is mandatory; if you have an active Internet connection the game can actually only be launched from your web browser while you're logged onto Battlelog. Single-player, co-op, server browsing, and matchmaking are all handled through the network's website. If, however, you set Origin (EA's answer to Steam, and BF3's other required online "service") to offline mode, the game will launch directly to the single-player campaign. Despite this hassle, Battlelog does its job quite well. Its main page features a Facebook Wall-style "Battle Feed" that details your accomplishments in chronological order, as well as a a list of "upcoming unlocks" just to ensure you never forget that if you play just a bit more, you'll get more stuff. You'll also be able to access friend and world leaderboards through BL. What's more, Battlelog supports the creation of Platoons -- the BF3 incarnation of clans. It's a nice service, and it provides all kinds of metrics to gauge your performance; I'm quite proud of my current 1.56 win/loss ratio and 473 score per minute.

Of course, some of you are wondering if you can even run the game on your machine, or whether you're better off sticking with the console version. Based on my own experience in the beta and with the final retail build, I can say that if you have a DirectX11-compatible video card and a quad-core processor -- not a particularly high bar to clear these days -- you're definitely better off with the PC version. I was impressed when I played the BF3 beta on my aging but still powerful Nvidia GTX 460 with no issues. I was able to max out the settings -- though my monitor at the time only went to a paltry 1366x768 resolution. I went into the retail version armed with a new 1680x1050 monitor and a top-of-the-line GTX 580, and found no problems maxing out the game. I wasn't able to play BF3 on a variety of PC setups, but the early word among those with access indicates that the game looks better than the console on all but the lowest settings. So, even if you have aging hardware, running the game on medium or high (as opposed to ultra) will still serve you just fine.

If you do have the hardware, BF3 rivals Crysis 2, Metro 2033, and The Witcher 2 for the king-of-PC-graphics crown -- even in giant 64-player matches. The Bad Company series eliminated this particular trademark, along with going prone and aircraft. All three make their return, though the 64-player count is exclusive to the PC; console players are limited to 24. These battles are massive, and it's fantastic to see friendly aircraft flying overhead keeping the skies clear while you defend allied armor from enemy RPG fire at a capture point.

Click the image above to check out all Battlefield 3 screens.

If you want to rack up the kills in smaller environments, you can try 32-player Team Deathmatch or Rush, which was featured in the beta and tasks you with destroying enemy M-Com stations. Squad-based variants on both modes further shrink the player limit down to 18 and 8 players, respectively. These modes don't stress mixed arms as much as the 64-player Conquest mode, but they might be more suitable for leveling up classes and guns quickly, and Bad Company 2 die-hards will be pleased that there are modes that play more like that game than BF1942.

When it's just you and a friend who want to play, you can jump into a series of co-op missions. These levels are best when they change things up from the single-player campaign -- for example, by putting one team member in the role of helicopter pilot and the other in the gunner's seat. However, many of the missions revolve around putting down enemy troops -- just like the single-player game -- and they suffer from the same flaws plus one additional issue: There is no mid-mission save or checkpoint in co-op. That means if you fail, you'll have to start from the beginning, and these missions are long. While some fans will love the challenge, far more will do what I did: Say "screw this" and go back to competitive multiplayer.

Battlefield 3 is a game that's informed, not bound, by both its predecessors and its competition. It takes what made the series great in earlier games and marries it to the innovations from more recent BF titles. The single-player and co-op campaigns both have their issues, but the multiplayer component is worth the price of entry alone.

It's alright,but no adrenaline shot!

Well i just played MP on the 29 of October,have not try Campaign yet.I was on vacation in Cuba & i was hungry for my consoles & games,since there's no internet for everyone.So i pop in BF3 looking 4 a adrenaline rush but i have to say i didn't find any i felt like falling asleep.I mean is cool but not cool enough i was back on playing Black Ops & Gears of War3 saying to myself damm cant' wait for MW3.It's basically just like BC2 every squad hanging around the helis or planes mad & shooting at each other,racing to get one,only a few ppl actually play as a squad/group.So i give it 8.5 a- whatever.

Fully formed sentences

Dear reader, aside from your poor grammer spelling and jumbled message I was unsure why kept mentioning console games in a pc only review. You might want comment on the console version since it has different score and seperate review thus your comments might have more value ?!

edited to grammar nazi a grammar nazi..

Aside from your poor grammar, spelling, and jumbled message, I was unsure why you kept mentioning console games in a PC only review. You might want to comment on the console version since it has a different score and separate review, thus giving your comments more value? (Proper usage on the last sentence was questionable.)

MW3 > Battlefield 3

I'm still going to have to go with MW3, because they have always put a lot of effort into their campaign's. Not to say that Battlefield 3 didn't, just saying that I think Modern Warfare 3 will have a better campaign. I think they will be somewhat similar in multiplayer though.

HELP ME!

Can someone please tell me how to get online to play battlefield 3? I have Xbox LIVE and whenever I try, it always says->"Player is too young". So I changed my Family Settings to Adult and can play Rated M games, but it still didnt work. I know I sound REALLY stupid right now, but I know that you have to make an EA account to do it also. But I dont know how to do that either, someone please Help ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed

The entire single player campaign is a glorified quick-time event! It is not fun, nor is it immersive. I can still get more enjoyment out of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat where I can switch to any soldier in sight Agent Smith-style at any time. That was an interesting feature. But this campaign just takes away your control and forces your choices. Multiplayer with bots would have been an preferable alternative to this anemia-inducing experience.

Did they fix the hacks in multiplayer ?

did they fix the cheating in the multiplayer? seems like a lotta cheaters, might be the top of the ladder? more info on my blog, but yeah maybe addressing aimbots and wallhacks would be good but this site doesn't meantion those at all?

Multiplayer

This statement is wrong. Battlefield has always been a Multiplayer only game. The single player is just a tack on for practice and an alternative to the multiplayer. Anyone who purchases BF3 for a single player experience is majorly misinformed about the game.

Yeah

wth

who in the world would spend their money on this game just to play single player. BF3, like counter strike, was basically made for multiplayer anyway unlike Uncharted for example (although i heard its still fun online).

Remember The Original Socom?

Anyone....Anyone. I bought that game on day one. The Single Player had mixed emotions among reviewers, but they PRAISED the multiplayer, and I can honestly say I loved the multiplayer so much, that I actually may have played the single player campaign once or twice the whole time I had it. I would start itching to play the multiplayer and the thoughts of the campaign would just dissolve.You could definatly tell where the developers time was spent.

I think that EA felt that with such a short crunch time. Where should we focus? And they focused on what will sell the game, and ultimatley the main thing they are competeing with COD with....Multiplayer.

The original Socom and Socom 2 are still in my top 25 games of all time, and Souly for the multiplayer experience. I can, however, see both sides of the argument. I fully feel that you should get a complete package, because I had a lot of friends that bought socom and did not have an internet connection, but loved the campaign.

hmmmm, something just seems odd...

So people are complaining about the campaign of a game that has always been multiplayer-centric (not to mention multiplayer ONLY) in it's previous renditions...listen, saying that this game is a not buy just for campaign is like saying that you didn't buy Unreal Tournament 2004 back in the day due to it's "Campaign" (if it even deserved to be called that). This game was intended to stand alone on the multiplayer component from the get go pure and simple. Think of the single player campaign as a bonus mode....see, aren't those developer guys so nice to give us bonus content for free instead of having DLC for download on day 1?

People have a right to complain about the campaign...

...if they included one in the game, which they did. At the end of the day, the developer should be more focused in their offerings and be and have the balls not to submit a campaign if not warrented, or multiplayer for the same reason (e.g. Mass Effect).

Single Player

I'm definitely buying...

this when I can scratch up the cash. I'm trying to understand the comments that slam the single player campaign. What exactly constitutes a great campaign in a military FPS? I'd like to know because most of the military FPS campaigns that I've played seem the same. And they all have a cookie cutter, throw away story. As silly as Duty Calls was, I thought it was insightful enough to point out the silliness of all military FPS campaigns. It never stopped me from enjoying them. I won't let the single player campaign reviews steer me away from a purchase because, I think we all see things through a different set of eyes (we do). I'm one of those people who buys for the single player over multiplayer. I just want to know what everybody looks for in a campaign of this particular watered down genre.

Single-player

The single-player isn't in addition to multiplayer. It's multiplayer with the addition of a single player campaign. This is the way Battlefield has always been designed. All the previous Battlefields didn't even have campaigns. The game should be reviewed just like Unreal Tournament. It's a Multiplayer game. It's stupid to focus on the single player campaign and then mention the multiplayer.

Call of Duty does have a better campaign, but Call of Duty also isn't a large scale warfare game with 64 players. I barely read any mention of how crazy and fun 64 player matches are. That is what the review should have been all about and that's what the game was designed around.

If you bought the game specifically for the single player campaign expecting Call of Duty then you deserve what you get. Research the game and you would know it's Multiplayer focused.

mediocre campaign should be reflected in the score

if the developers included a single-player campaign in the package, and that campaign is not considered some sort of bonus side mode but is actually a major focus of the game, then that campaign mode should be considered when reviewing the game.

a sub-par campaign mode should reflect poorly on the overall score for the game.

AMEN

I completely agree. Avg 5 hours for a single player campaign is a joke for $60. If you're going to focus on building a great MP game and tack on a short, generic SP campaign, you have no business charging $60.

Also, I'm surprised that none of the game review sites are blasting this game for no joystick support.

I'm so glad I cancelled my preorder and put it towards Skyrim instead. I'll probably just wait and get this during a holiday sale at the end of the year.

lol...

no, i'm not young. i remember thinking it was silly when games like unreal tournament and quake 3 started coming out without some sort of single-player campaign (quake 3's simulation of multiplayer matches building up to the big bad doesn't count). at the time, i wasn't into online multiplayer at all; the only multiplayer i was into was four-player split-screen on goldeneye. i really didn't get into the multiplayer aspect of a shooter until halo 3 came out. while i enjoyed playing quake 3 (and on one or two occasions, lan tournaments of quake 2 or unreal), i still felt they were lacking for not having a single player.

so no, i would NOT rather that battlefield 3 had no campaign at all, i would RATHER it have a campaign that is fun to play. which this campaign might be, i don't know. i'm just judging from this reviewer, who said that the campaign was not that great and then went on to ignore that fact in his score.

yes, i buy fps's for the campaign. halo has one of the best story mode's i've ever experienced in a video game. the story in goldeneye was better than the movie it was based on. i love the epic, apocalyptic wwiii feel of the modern warfare campaign. so yes, a shooter CAN have an engrossing and entertaining story, and i am disappointed when they do not.

and i have mw3 pre-ordered. i'm actually not sure how great the story will be without the original iw guys to finish it out, but i have to find out for myself.

Who cares?!?

plenty of gamers don't care for the multiplayer, so, obviously they care that the single player is lackluster... im not buying it no matter how great multiplayer is because i dont care about that part of the game... if the single player had been worthwhile, then id have considered it.. but obviously, the devs should have just completely left the single player campaign off the game and shipped the game as the true sequel to BF2... or sold the single player as a stand -alone product for a lesser price... then id have jumped in... no thanks EA... high reviews don't mean anything when they arent meant for me...

That's fair

I am definitely getting this game, because Battlefield multiplayer is unparalled-- it's just pure awesome. If you're looking for a game with a great single-player campaign, then you're smart not to get this game... otherwise it's like buying Red Dead Redemption or something like that for the multiplayer, which makes equal (non)sense.

Don't be quite so sure

Just because the reviewer says it'll run OK on your 2-year old machine does not make it so. With relatively recent machines (since core 2/athlon 2/phenom 2 launches) age is almost meaningless as a differentiator. It doesn't matter much whether your computer is 6 months old or 4 years old, there's only one thing that REALLY matters: What kind of graphics card is in it? A low end graphics card is a low end graphics card regardless of age, and any low-end graphics card will struggle with this unless you run at a pretty low resolution, like 1024x768.

As far as Origin goes, I'm pretty sure it'll be installed from the disc as part of the standard install procedure.

@sunmofo

Dude, obviously the reviews would have mentioned it if the retail version still has the same bugs. Since none of them do, it appears they are not there. Seeing the rest of your comments, you're just a COD fanboy who's clearly jealous.

not a cod fanboy

i do enjoy those games, but i'm not a fanboy. they have their problems, which i'm hoping but doubting that mw3 will fix.

and i'm certainly not jealous. i actually was looking forward to bf3, and if enough of my friends grab it and give it the ok, i'll probably grab it too to play with them. i can afford to get them both. i have absolutely no reason to be jealous.

i just hate this attitude that ea has copped that their bf3 game is the game that's going to destroy call of duty, and that mw3 will fail, and all this negative crap that's ultimately gonna fly in their face when battlefield 3 sells about 1/4 as many copies as modern warfare 3. honestly, i don't care which game sells more. i'll probably spend more time on gears of war 3 and halo reach than either of them.

What happened to 128-player battles?

I seem to recall an early preview stating there would be massive maps of this scale, that's what got me really pumped up about this game. Oh well.

Anyway, hope they won't fudge up localization; living in Japan I don't want to import the US version just so I can play it in English. And if I do, I hope they won't region-lock me out of online play like many online games frustratingly tend to do.

Really?

I will be chiming in with my own after facts review, but i find it odd that so many sites are loving the game (with the score that is), yet all say the same about the single player. Lackluster Single-Player, Frustrating Campaign, Underwhelming single player, We've seen this in Black Ops, etc. Yet 9, 10, 5 star, 4.5 outta five and -A, is that even possible? I love me some online but scoring simply off of the multiplayer offering is a lil crazy. I will be playing this and COD but i'd love to see some scores fitting of a game with bland single or multiplayer (single player in this case).

AGREED!

Even though this is a "multiplayer" game, there is a single player portion that they have also been hyping. This is a part of the game and it should have an effect on the score. IF the single player is as bad as i have been reading, I think this game should be a 7.5 or 8.

Yeah

It doesn't matter if it's always been a multiplayer game or not, this has a much hyped single player. Most of the trailers show the single player campaign. If this were any other game the reviewers would be more harsh on the game having a lackluster single player campaign. Not to mention the problems noted about co-op. I can remember a few years back when all the games that had normally been single player only, started cramming in a multiplayer component and the reviewers would bring the score of the whole package down as a reflection of that.

it's like

let's say you bought a hybrid car, right? let's say everything related to it being a hybrid is great, it gets good gas mileage, that's awesome. but there's more to a hybrid car then just it's fuel efficiency and engine build. what if it has bad handling? what if you don't like the interior? what if it is an unreliable car? just because it has a main push, doesn't mean the other stuff doesn't matter, that's terrible logic. i'm fine if they want to separate the reviews and have a single player and a multiplayer review, no problem. but a review like this, should take everything into consideration, and it just doesn't. it's biased, and therefore useless to me.

I'll see you in the skies

Bah, I don't care about 64 player multiplayer. 32 is chaotic enough with a really good group, and I'm happy to see a game reward successful co-operation rather than "oh, you caused damage to a guy that just got killed so here's 50 XP for your trouble".

I know I've said it before, but it has jets. Anything is better with F/A-18s and MiG-35s.

MAG

dont feel cheated

Buy a PC (or ask for it as a bday prez) with nice specs and pc game it up! Or go play MAG. True you will miss out on the massive vehicle combat and sweet graphical eye candy as well as the kick a$$ multiplayer gameplay dice is know for, but you will have 256 player battles! It sucks console players get smaller scaled battles for sure. But they still get to experience BF3. I for one would rather experience the smaller scoped game on console then not have it there at all. I can play this game on my computer with no problem (i played the demo there), but i have friends who will only be playing on console and i will enjoy gaming with them via console.

Hoped for a better story, curious for console graphics

Ah, a shame that the story is weak. I always buy games for the single player experience, such as Uncharted or Mass Effect. Multiplayer has always felt some sort of add-on in my eyes, although occasionally I do like playing a round online.

What about the console graphics in the final retail version? I'm probably not going to buy this game for my work/study notebook (2nd gen i7, Quadro graphics) so I would REALLY like to know how the PS3 version holds its ground against the mighty PC :) I'm curious about that hi-def texture pack that DICE mentioned as well!

EDIT: apparently the console review is coming later, so I'll just sit tight and wait for it :)

Battlefield 2 is one of the best games I've ever played..

I kinda wish Dice had just kept with tradition and released it as a pure multiplayer experience like the previous titles (and I'm talking about Battlefield titles NOT Bad Company ones) because the single player is gonna get ragged on .

yea

I have always liked Dices' two worlds battlefield (our realistic take aka WAR) and Bad Company (the fun take aka The Story before the war). I was sure this game would take a hit from being a MW play alike.

Decent Review

You answered many of my questions, I am eagerly awaiting this for my Xbox on Tues. I would like to get in on my PC, but most of my friends are on the consoles due to having old video cards ect. Co-op sounds like a bitch, but I like the idea of being punished to the beginning of each mission. I say that now....